DICE changes mind on Battlefield 3 colour grading option

Earlier in the week, I reported DICE would be introducing an option to remove the colour grading aka blue tint from Battlefield 3 on PC. If you're one of the folks adamant about it being terrible, prepare to get angry: it's not coming after all.

DICE programmer Mikael Kalms has since responded to the original thread the news was sourced from, saying after discussing it with others at DICE, they've decided against the option for artistic reasons. Here's the official statement:

"As a studio, it is extremely important for us at DICE to have a unique identity in our games, not only from a gameplay perspective, but visually as well. While we appreciate that some players might want a slightly different look to the game, we are proud of the visual identity of Battlefield 3 and do not wish to change it."

You can't please everyone, so I have to agree it's best to do what you feel is best as an artist of whatever sort. This whole situation brings to mind the Diablo 3 and Mass Effect 3 fiascos (what's with games with the number 3 in them provoking fiascos?); I never thought I'd see the day where feedback on subjective elements would turn into flat-out demand, and developers would actually consider or even directly act on it, but here we are.

In my humble opinion, the "you can't please everyone" attitude is plain wrong. Modding already goes a very long way toward pleasing everyone. Of course, it also leaves less room for exploitation, which is just an added bonus for the customers.

In my humble opinion, the "you can't please everyone" attitude is plain wrong. Modding already goes a very long way toward pleasing everyone. Of course, it also leaves less room for exploitation, which is just an added bonus for the customers.

At the same time, it is incredibly important for a company to establish their own identity. Even more so in today's cutthroat market. Even more more so when you're dealing with a specific demographic of consumers. It's also important they have confidence in their decision making, or at least come across like they believe it, if they want to continue to be taken seriously.

I am so very tired of people defending the game developers. You should get what you want, and companies that respond to that attitude will be know for that. This is a market that they should be diving into. People want more than the run of the mill game out of the box. I've grown as a gamer and i find myself saddened by the lack of luster that developers are producing nowadays.

CD Projekt establishes its identity by being awesome to its fans. Bethesda establishes its identity by making good sandbox games and allowing the fans to improve them. EA establishes its identity by greed and ruining franchises and gamestudios. Blizzard's identity is endless balancing wars.

I am so very tired of people defending the game developers. You should get what you want, and companies that respond to that attitude will be know for that. This is a market that they should be diving into. People want more than the run of the mill game out of the box. I've grown as a gamer and i find myself saddened by the lack of luster that developers are producing nowadays.

There are alot more constraints in game development than just customer perception and demand.

Deep down, most if not all devs want to produce the highest quality and most innovative games possible, problem is to do that they have huge capital requirements and no way to raise funds until they deliver a product (with the exception of kickstarter, which is why there has been so much innovation in that market). So then they call onto publishers for funding which brings in constraints on innovation since pubs want to minimise risks and maximise return like any big corporation, leading to devs being forced to regurgitate what has been successful previously (COD as an example).

I for one am astounded that DICE chose to let the news settle for a few days BEFORE they decided they were against it. Considering the positive buzz it brought about for the game, you'd think they'd have seen its potential to win over some lost fans (lets be honest, someone somewhere probably had a big problem with the color grading). The whole situation does stink of EA/DICE milking the publicity it got. However, I cannot disregard the poor practice by PR by suddenly deciding (seemingly last minute) that "actually, we changed our minds and decided we don't want to".

How do you figure Mass Effect 3 falls into that. They gave out free dlc to try and fix the way that fans felt about the ending. That seems to be an anti money move to me.

Yet arguably the most important character in the game was day one DLC for a whopping ten bucks, which it wasn't worth in the slightest. Multiplayer was tacked on so they could sell upgrade kits for real money. The revised ending still lacked a final confrontation with Harbinger (which made no sense in the first place) and in the added ending where the player can say "up yours" to the catalyst, the next cycle wins with the crucible anyway, according to word of god.

And the extended ending IS about money, Maybe not directly, but the added press and their "listening to the fans" showcases them as a company that cares about its fans, leading to more sales. In secret, they slap their fans (if any are left) in the face.

See sorry, to me you just seem like a person who would have hated them either way.

that so called "Most important character(like you said arguably, which honestly not really, he adds little to no story other than his initial backstory cutscene.) isn't really a necessary add on to the game as playing without him doeesn't hurt the gamea all that much. And really Whopping? it's ten bucks. Multiplayer is a decent, yet boring addition, but no one forces anyone to buy those packs for cash, all the packs I bought I earned from earned credits.

I'm not saying Mass Effect 3 was a bad game, it was not. And there are things the the extended endings did right. I'm just saying that they didn't release them for free from the goodness of their hearts, and that they even kicked the fans who wanted to win with conventional means after giving them an ending that in itself was satisfactory to them. Not exactly the actions of a benevolent game developer.

For Mass Effect being a good game. Well, it's a good sci-fi shooter (or action adventure if you prefer that). All other elements are shallow or poorly done. It's not even an RPG anymore, and that's quite a jarring genreshift for the last game in a trilogy, especially one with savefile transfer and thus world consistency. There was no good reason to do this.

Would I have hated the endings either way? Well yes, if you wrote them like this I would. And there's nothing wrong with that. I like my endings to make sense in universe. You can't have Shepard beating the odds in every game up until the last moments and then say "oh, sorry. Can't be done here." It just doesn't fit with the rest of it. And the whole "victory through sacrifice"-thing was nonsense too. The only sacrifice we made was on Virmire in Mass Effect 1. In 3, people just died once in a while and I didn't even feel bad about it. I really wanted to love this game, I loved the other two, but it just doesn't begin to live up to the other two.

I barely play BF3 because of the tint, wouldn't be a problem from me if it was sporadic usage, but it's not, it's all the damn time. I'd rather play BFBC2(even though is dead majority of the time) because they refuse too change the colour filter.

The ironic thing is, I actually love playing the game and would probably spunked money at all of the dlc they had released.